This is a franchise, and MOS dealt with a specific situation that focused mostly on the Kryptonian characters. I'm quite certain that we'll see other facets of Lois's personality going forward. Also, I have a question for the Amy critics. Does she look too old to play Lois there? I think not.

This is a franchise, and MOS dealt with a specific situation that focused mostly on the Kryptonian characters. I'm quite certain that we'll see other facets of Lois's personality going forward. Also, I have a question for the Amy critics. Does she look too old to play Lois there? I think not.

If you mean the movie...I never had an issue with her age, but since the character was obviously meant to be an older woman (Clark himself is 33), Amy playing her makes perfect sense in context, so I suppose if she does look "too old" to play Lois, that's kind of a good thing.

If you mean the movie...I never had an issue with her age, but since the character was obviously meant to be an older woman (Clark himself is 33), Amy playing her makes perfect sense in context, so I suppose if she does look "too old" to play Lois, that's kind of a good thing.

If you're talking about the picture...nope.

I wasn't referring to you specifically. I was referring to all the people that I heard say things like "she 38, she's too old" or "she's 9 years older than Henry, that's creepy" or stupid stuff like that.

I never wanted Olivia, she has the look but has never proven she can act.

I have to disagree with this, I'm a big fan of Amy as Lois, but I think Olivia has made some bad choices in movies (therefore, not movies that really show what she can do), but one excellent choice that showed her acting chops was "People Like Us"...and she had made some good choices for 2013 it looks like to prove that even further.

__________________

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.
Faith is taking the first step even when you don't see the whole staircase. ~Martin Luther King Jr.~

I have to disagree with this, I'm a big fan of Amy as Lois, but I think Olivia has made some bad choices in movies (therefore, not movies that really show what she can do), but one excellent choice that showed her acting chops was "People Like Us"...and she had made some good choices for 2013 it looks like to prove that even further.

I have to disagree with this, I'm a big fan of Amy as Lois, but I think Olivia has made some bad choices in movies (therefore, not movies that really show what she can do), but one excellent choice that showed her acting chops was "People Like Us"...and she had made some good choices for 2013 it looks like to prove that even further.

I always think of Elizabeth Banks from that movie but Olivia did give a good performance in a role that didn't get as much time.

__________________"Now this life is etched in black but I wont be looking back, the rain washed out the tracks, I'll never find again"

Really? You see One Season, which is consisted of mainly 22 episodes, an hour each, being the same as ONE film that is just barely 2 hours and an half?

And better yet, you would just target an actress's worth in their role based on ONE episode, let alone their first?

Wow, that is without a doubt the most ridiculous thing that I've EVER heard dude.

Yes. Movie's have a bigger production, the top, highly paid writers are hired to write it. They play out epic stories. Actresses on television don't have that luxury, they have to deal with comedy, bad storylines and crap episodes a lot of the time. The writers are more low pay and there's no guarantee they are any good. In television the schedule is very difficult. They normally have to work 8-10 hours a day, 6 days a week to bring out 45 minute episodes week-by-week. They aren't paid much. In movies actors and actresses take out months just to film something worth 2 hours. They are paid a gold mine. There are lots of reasons why actors/ actresses in films have it easier than in television. There are lots of reasons why actors/ actresses seem more epic in films, than they would in television. There are millions of dollars which goes into making them look good and seem exciting. In television there is a few thousand. In my opinion sometimes it's a case of actors who rise to what they have more than actors who were given lots to work with. You have to take that into consideration.

I think one season vs one movie is a somewhat fair comparison. What happens in movies is epic. What happens in television is not to epic, this makes television actors look bad. If not, when I said or one episode, if you don't think that is a fair comparison perhaps their first two episodes. So for Teri Hatcher, Pilot and Strange Visitor (From Another Planet) and for Erica, Crusade and Gone. Both total the time of the movies.

If you don't want to compare/ actors/ actresses that's fine, but it isn't ridiculous and if you are to compare them, you need to measure accurately, so that both actors have equal opportunity.

Quote:

Why does her hair color matter that much? She has had strides of red hair in the comics and in other previous incarnations.

Teri and Erica had brown hair. It doesn't matter that much. It just makes it more iconic to the comics.

Yes. Movie's have a bigger production, the top, highly paid writers are hired to write it. They play out epic stories. Actresses on television don't have that luxury, they have to deal with comedy and crap episodes a lot of the time. The writers are more low pay and there's no guarantee they are any good. In television the schedule is very difficult. They normally have to work 8-10 hours a day, 6 days a week to bring out 45 minute episodes week-by-week. In movies actors and actresses take out months just to film something worth 2 hours. There are lots of reasons why actors/ actresses in films have it easier than in television. There are lots of reasons why actors/ actresses seem more epic in films, than they would in television. There are millions of dollars which goes into making them look good and seem exciting. In television there is a few thousand. In my opinion sometimes it's a case of actors who rise to what they have more than actors who were given lots to work with. You have to take that into consideration.

I think one season vs one movie is a somewhat fair comparison. What happens in movies is epic. What happens in television is not to epic, this makes television actors look bad. When I said or one episode, if you don't think that is a fair comparison perhaps their first two episodes. So for Teri Hatcher, Pilot and Strange Visitor (From Another Planet) and for Erica, Crusade and Gone. Both total the time of the movies.

If you don't want to compare/ actors/ actresses that's fine, but it isn't ridiculous and if you are to compare them, you need to measure accurately, so that both actors have equal opportunity.

Do you just type without thinking about you're saying or are these just posts based on impulses?

Production Value has NOTHING to do with the amount of time that's devoted towards showcasing an character on the actual film, let alone one that isn't the titular character.

Good grief, you do realize that Amy Adams only had so much time to work with being Lois in MOS right? In a story that was more focused on showing Superman's origins and the mythology of Krypton...

Whereas shows like Smallville and L&C were able to devote much more time in fleshing out their versions of Lois in terms of back story and development due to every episode offering something new.

If you can't understand that concept, then it's freaking hopeless trying to talk some logic towards you about this situation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by WarriorDreamer

Teri and Erica had brown hair. It doesn't matter that much. It just makes it more iconic to the comics.

Do you just type without thinking about you're saying or are these just posts based on impulses?

Production Value has NOTHING to do with the amount of time that's devoted towards showcasing an character on the actual film, let alone one that isn't the titular character.

Good grief, you do realize that Amy Adams only had so much time to work with being Lois in MOS right? In a story that was more focused on showing Superman's origins and the mythology of Krypton...

Whereas shows like Smallville and L&C were able to devote much more time in fleshing out their versions of Lois in terms of back story and development due to every episode offering something new.

If you can't understand that concept, then it's freaking hopeless trying to talk some logic towards you about this situation.

So what? Movie actors/ actresses don't get time to portray their character therefore they are exempt from any and all comparison? Crap logic. If you are given materiel you rise to whatever crap is given you with whatever time you have. I'm not saying Amy didn't, but I'm saying to state there is no way you can compare a movie Lois and a TV Lois is ridiculous. They are acting in a production, they are given time to play a story of Superman.

Or are you saying that given time to play Lois is better than being given a beautiful and epic backdrop which films are given? In my opinion Henry Cavill is a better Superman than Dean Cain's Superman and he was given much less time.

In my opinion Henry Cavill is a better Superman than Dean Cain's Superman and he was given much less time. :

That's because the costume, effects, and action scenes had a budget. He still wasn't nearly as fleshed out as Dean Cain's character. Also that's a show about Lois, Clark, and their relationship. This is a movie about Superman. The focus is very different.

And because you know, Cavill actually looks like Superman. And acts like him. The scenes with the Military (Interrogation, the ''we know how to stop them'' debate and the crashing of the drone. ) where he had actual dialogue to say were more Superman-ish than anything Cain did in L&C. And I really like that show. But I like it for what's in the title - L&C. The Superman portion is forgettable and mediocre at best.

The scenes with the Military (Interrogation, the ''we know how to stop them'' debate and the crashing of the drone. ) where he had actual dialogue to say were more Superman-ish than anything Cain did in L&C.

That's debatable. He was a lighter, funnier version of Superman but he was still Superman.

I wasn't referring to you specifically. I was referring to all the people that I heard say things like "she 38, she's too old" or "she's 9 years older than Henry, that's creepy" or stupid stuff like that.

There's really no need to call other people's thoughts ridiculous. Lois should have dark hair IMO, the iconic Lois has black hair but even if they wanted it red it should have been a darker red like Scarlett's in The Avengers.

Agree with the OP, I think it's best not to reveal Lois's exact age in the movies - if only to prevent arguments on the forums!

Amy has already stated that she is playing younger than her real age for Lois, and from MoS I would have guessed around early 30s for Lois, around the same age as Supes.

It's the right age I feel - she needs to be an established journalist and feel and look like a proper woman rather than a girl straight out of college - which was how I felt about Kate Bosworth in SR.

And yes of course if they make a few Superman movies, she would be in her early 40s but she looks years younger than she is so who cares?

Though there's a 9 year age gap, I think she and Henry Cavill both have very versatile looks in terms of age - both can look older or younger depending on the role or scene (Cavill especially looked very young in the Daily Planet scenes at the end of MoS IMO) so it doesn't make any difference whatsoever.

There were really people who thought the 9 year age gap was 'creepy'???

Crazy. Though most of them are probably just 15 year old Cavill fangirls who think anyone over the age of 25 is old...